"Not a Fair Test": RI Teachers Perspectives on PARCC

Teacher voices have been notably absent in the recent controversy over the PARCC test in Rhode Island.  Articles in the Providence Journal have focused on the perspectives of RIDE officials and superintendents, many of whom insist the test is fair, valid, and has few problems (“Few hitches in first week of PARCC testing in RI” 3/22/15).   Despite this, parents in a variety of districts chose to have their children opt-out.

As educators prepare for the EOY (End of Year) PARCC, it is important to understand what happened with the recent PBA (Performance Based Assessment) PARCC. 298 teachers responded to an online survey asking about their experiences preparing for and administering the test.  

Larry Filipelli, assistant superintendent in Scituate, acknowledged that the PARCC caused a “massive loss of instructional time.”  Teachers agreed.  One teacher described how the average middle school student will spend 22 out of 180 days of school taking standardized tests.  69% of teachers altered the curriculum to prepare students for the test.   One English teacher wrote, “I teach less literature and writing every year because of time lost to testing.  How is that conducive to student learning?”

Mary Ann Snider of RIDE stated, “Superintendents said the test questions were of a really high quality.”  Teachers disagreed, citing three problems.  First, the tests were developmentally inappropriate.  Third grade students lacked the stamina to sit at the computer for long periods.  Teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) said the test measured proficiency in English rather than content.  One teacher wrote, “If students have an IEP (Individualized Educational Plan) for reading, it doesn’t matter how much I prepare them, they still cannot read the test.”  A math teacher noted that the math content was “unrealistic” for her ninth grade students.   An English teacher said the readings by James Joyce and Charles Dickens were inappropriate for her middle school students.

Second, teachers objected to how questions were phrased.  One wrote, “The questions could be interpreted in different ways.”  Another teacher wrote, "This is not an authentic measure of knowledge.  It’s a measure of ability to play the game.”  Others noted that the questions were poorly constructed.

Third, survey data show students had difficulty with the computer interface.  One teacher wrote, “If [students] don’t understand the tools, can’t type quickly enough, or find the layout confusing,” then the results do not reflect the students’ knowledge.  As these teachers point out, developmentally inappropriate material, poorly worded questions, and computer navigation problems suggest the test results will lack validity.

Testing also took an emotional toll on students.  78% of teachers reported that students exhibited stress, sadness, and anger.  According to research, one key component of student aspirations is belief in their academic efficacy.  Many teachers wrote that ELLs and students with learning disabilities lost confidence in the progress they had made over the year.  

Unsurprisingly, 90% of teachers felt that time spent on the PARCC was pointless.  They will not see the results until fall, when they no longer teach the same students.  Furthermore, they argued they do not need standardized tests to show student progress because they use various assessments throughout the year. One wrote, “Any teacher can tell you what the student could or could not do without PARCC.”  

In addition to critique, teachers offered suggestions for improvement.  One teacher wrote, “Let’s be creative and work harder to create assessments that are fair and valid for students of all economic backgrounds.”  Another said, “It is time to focus on what we know improves learning:  smaller class sizes, interesting curriculum, inspiring teachers, and support staff to assist students at risk.”  These teachers echo what educational research has demonstrated for decades, and what current national policies have ignored.

As a small state with a new Board of Education and searching for a Commissioner of Education, Rhode Island should place teacher voices and findings from educational research at the center as we move forward in supporting students as learners and citizens.  We could be leaders in national public education by developing policies that include the input of the many dedicated and knowledgeable professionals in K-16 education throughout the state.   

Janet Johnson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Secondary Education and Co-Director of the URI/RIC Ph.D. Program in Education at Rhode Island College.